What is best for Esther? Building improvement coaching capacity with and for users in health and social Care-A case study

While coaching and customer involvement can enhance the improvement of health and social care, many organizations struggle to develop their improvement capability; it is unclear how best to accomplish this. We examined one attempt at training improvement coaches. The program, set in the Esther Network for integrated care in rural Jonkoping County, Sweden, included eight 1-day sessions spanning 7 months in 2011. A senior citizen joined the faculty in all training sessions. Aiming to discern which elements in the program were essential for assuming the role of improvement coach, we used a case-study design with a qualitative approach. Our focus group interviews included 17 informants: 11 coaches, 3 faculty members, and 3 senior citizens. We performed manifest content analysis of the interview data. Creating will, ideas, execution, and sustainability emerged as crucial elements. These elements were promoted by customer focusembodied by the senior citizen trainershared values and a solution-focused approach, by the supportive coach network and by participants' expanded systems understanding. These elements emerged as more important than specific improvement tools and are worth considering also elsewhere when seeking to develop improvement capability in health and social care organizations.

Challenges to improve inter-professional care and service collaboration for people living with psychiatric disabilities in ordinary housing

The aim of this study was to describe health care- and social service professionals' experiences of a quality-improvement program implemented in the south of Sweden. The focus of the program was to develop inter-professional collaboration to improve care and service to people with psychiatric disabilities in ordinary housing. Focus group interviews and a thematic analysis were used. The result was captured as themes along steps in process. (I) Entering the quality-improvement program: Lack of information about the program, The challenge of getting started, and Approaching the resources reluctantly. (II) Doing the practice-based improvement work: Facing unprepared workplaces, and Doing twice the work. (III) Looking backevaluation over 1 year: Balancing theoretical knowledge with practical training, and Considering profound knowledge as an integral part of work. The improvement process in clinical practice was found to be both time and energy consuming, yet worth the effort. The findings also indicate that collaboration across organizational boundaries was broadened, and the care and service delivery were improved.